Centre Proposes IT Rules Amendment to Extend Takedown Powers to Individual Social Media Users
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) published proposed amendments to the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 on March 30, 2026, inviting stakeholder feedback by April 14.
The draft — titled the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Second Amendment Rules, 2026 — would allow the I&B Ministry to send takedown notices directly to individual social media users (private persons, influencers, content creators) for posts related to news and current affairs, not just to registered online news publishers.
Currently, Part III of the IT Rules (the digital media ethics code and three-tier oversight mechanism) applies only to professional media organisations. The amendment proposes to extend it to individual users posting news content on platforms like YouTube, Instagram, and X (formerly Twitter).
Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) termed the proposal "massive expansion of unconstitutional censorship" and "digital authoritarianism," arguing it targets speech by private citizens outside any existing legal framework.
The proposed changes include a three-hour takedown window for certain content categories (AI-generated content, deepfakes) under a separate 2026 amendment regime.
Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021
The IT Rules 2021 were notified under Section 87 of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and created the most comprehensive social media and digital media regulation framework India had seen.
The 2026 amendment proposes to extend Part III's oversight mechanism — designed for professional publishers — to private individuals, raising fundamental questions about press freedom and citizen speech.
Article 19(1)(a) and Reasonable Restrictions Under Article 19(2)
The proposed amendment directly engages India's constitutional framework for free speech.
Critics argue the proposed amendment suffers from the same constitutional infirmity as Section 66A — it extends executive content-removal power beyond Article 19(2) grounds by targeting broad categories of "news and current affairs" content without specific legal standards.
Intermediary Liability and the Safe Harbour Principle
Central to the social media regulation debate is whether platforms are liable for user-generated content, and under what conditions.
Key Details
- Section 79 of IT Act, 2000: Grants "safe harbour" to intermediaries — platforms are not liable for third-party content if they observe due diligence and do not initiate or actively participate in creating the content.
- The safe harbour is conditioned on compliance with the IT Rules 2021 (due diligence obligations).
- If a platform fails to take down notified content within the prescribed timeframe, it loses safe harbour protection and can be held liable.
- The proposed 2026 amendment extends government oversight to individual users, making their posts subject to takedown notices — a significant shift from regulating platforms to regulating persons.
- The IFF and press freedom groups argue that subjecting individuals to a three-tier oversight system (designed for media organisations) is disproportionate and lacks procedural safeguards.
The amendment blurs the line between regulating content distributors (intermediaries) and directly regulating speech by individuals — a distinction the Shreya Singhal judgment considered constitutionally significant.
- Parent legislation: Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 87 rule-making power)
- IT Rules 2021: Notified February 25, 2021; replace IT Rules 2011
- Proposed amendment: IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Second Amendment Rules, 2026; stakeholder feedback by April 14, 2026
- Key change: Extend Part III oversight (three-tier mechanism) to individual users posting news content
- I&B Ministry new power: Issue takedown notices directly to private users (not just publishers)
- Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015): Struck down Section 66A IT Act; read down Section 79
- Article 19(1)(a): Right to speech; Article 19(2): Exhaustive list of permissible restrictions
- Significant social media intermediary threshold: 50 lakh registered users
- Platforms affected: YouTube, Instagram, X (Twitter), and similar user-content platforms
- Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF) position: "Massive expansion of unconstitutional censorship"